• Nowitschok, Nawalny, Nordstream, Nonsense

    Nowitschok, Nawalny, Nordstream, Nonsense

    Der Menschenrechtsaktivist, Blogger und frühere britische Botschafter Craig Murray hat sich im vergangenen Jahr ausführlich mit der angeblichen Nowitschok-Vergiftung der Skripals in Salisbury auseinandergesetzt. An der offiziellen Story machte er so viele Ungereimtheiten und offene Flanken aus, dass er sicher ist: So wie von der britischen Regierung und den Leitmedien dargestellt, kann es sich nicht abgespielt haben. Auch der Geschichte um die angeblich zweifelsfrei festgestellte Nowitschok-Vergiftung von Alexej Nawalny samt obligatorischem Fingerzeig nach Moskau begegnet Murray mit einer gehörigen Portion Skepsis und Ironie. Übersetzung von Susanne Hofmann.

    Sobald Nawalny in Berlin war, war es nur eine Frage der Zeit, ehe man erklärte, dass er (...)

    • Le militant des droits de l’homme, blogueur et ancien ambassadeur britannique Craig Murray a traité en profondeur de l’empoisonnement présumé des #Skripals de Salisbury par Novichok l’année dernière. Sur le récit officiel, il a relevé tant d’incohérences et de flancs ouverts qu’il en est certain : tel que le décrivent le gouvernement britannique et les medias principaux, ainsi cela ne peut pas s’être passé. Á la même manière l’histoire de l’ #empoisonnement d’Alexei Nawalny par Novichok, dont l’accusation obligatoire de #Moscou, est accueillie par Murray avec une bonne dose de scepticisme et d’ironie.

      #Russie #Allemagne #États-unis #nord_stream #north_stream 2

      2020-09-03, Craig Murray

      #Novichok, #Navalny, #Nordstream, Nonsense


      Once Navalny was in Berlin it was only a matter of time before it was declared that he was poisoned with Novichok. The Russophobes are delighted. This of course eliminates all vestiges of doubt about what happened to the Skripals, and proves that Russia must be isolated and sanctioned to death and we must spend untold billions on weapons and security services. We must also increase domestic surveillance, crack down on dissenting online opinion. It also proves that Donald Trump is a Russian puppet and Brexit is a Russian plot.

      I am going to prove beyond all doubt that I am a Russian troll by asking the question Cui Bono?, brilliantly identified by the Integrity Initiative’s Ben Nimmo as a sure sign of Russian influence.

      I should state that I have no difficulty at all with the notion that a powerful oligarch or an organ of the Russian state may have tried to assassinate Navalny. He is a minor irritant, rather more famous here than in Russia, but not being a major threat does not protect you against political assassination in Russia.

      What I do have difficulty with is the notion that if Putin, or other very powerful Russian actors, wanted Navalny dead, and had attacked him while he was in Siberia, he would not be alive in Germany today. If Putin wanted him dead, he would be dead.

      Let us first take the weapon of attack. One thing we know about a “Novichok” for sure is that it appears not to be very good at assassination. Poor Dawn Sturgess is the only person ever to have allegedly died from “Novichok”, accidentally according to the official narrative. “Novichok” did not kill the Skripals, the actual target. If Putin wanted Navalny dead, he would try something that works. Like a bullet to the head, or an actually deadly poison.

      “Novichok” is not a specific chemical. It is a class of chemical weapon designed to be improvised in the field from common domestic or industrial precursors. It makes some sense to use on foreign soil as you are not carrying around the actual nerve agent, and may be able to buy the ingredients locally. But it makes no sense at all in your own country, where the FSB or GRU can swan around with any deadly weapon they wish, to be making homemade nerve agents in the sink. Why would you do that?

      Further we are expected to believe that, the Russian state having poisoned Navalny, the Russian state then allowed the airplane he was traveling in, on a domestic flight, to divert to another airport, and make an emergency landing, so he could be rushed to hospital. If the Russian secret services had poisoned Navalny at the airport before takeoff as alleged, why would they not insist the plane stick to its original flight plan and let him die on the plane? They would have foreseen what would happen to the plane he was on.

      Next, we are supposed to believe that the Russian state, having poisoned Navalny, was not able to contrive his death in the intensive care unit of a Russian state hospital. We are supposed to believe that the evil Russian state was able to falsify all his toxicology tests and prevent doctors telling the truth about his poisoning, but the evil Russian state lacked the power to switch off the ventilator for a few minutes or slip something into his drip. In a Russian state hospital.

      Next we are supposed to believe that Putin, having poisoned Navalny with novichok, allowed him to be flown to Germany to be saved, making it certain the novichok would be discovered. And that Putin did this because he was worried Merkel was angry, not realising she might be still more angry when she discovered Putin had poisoned him with novichok

      There are a whole stream of utterly unbelievable points there, every single one of which you have to believe to go along with the western narrative. Personally I do not buy a single one of them, but then I am a notorious Russophile traitor.

      The United States is very keen indeed to stop Germany completing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which will supply Russian gas to Germany on a massive scale, sufficient for about 40% of its electricity generation. Personally I am opposed to Nord Stream 2 myself, on both environmental and strategic grounds. I would much rather Germany put its formidable industrial might into renewables and self-sufficiency. But my reasons are very different from those of the USA, which is concerned about the market for liquefied gas to Europe for US produces and for the Gulf allies of the US. Key decisions on the completion of Nord Stream 2 are now in train in Germany.

      The US and Saudi Arabia have every reason to instigate a split between Germany and Russia at this time. Navalny is certainly a victim of international politics. That he is a victim of Putin I tend to doubt.


      The UK state is of course currently trying to silence one small bubble of dissent by imprisoning me, so you will not have access to another minor but informed view of world events for you to consider. Yesterday I launched a renewed appeal for funds for my legal defence in the Contempt of Court action against me for my reporting of the attempted fit-up of Alex Salmond. I should be extremely grateful if you can contribute to my defence fund, or subscribe to my blog.

  • Fall Nawalny: „Putins Gift, Putins Anschlag“

    Fall Nawalny: „Putins Gift, Putins Anschlag“

    Die Berichterstattung zum Fall Nawalny ist extrem unseriös: Unschuldsvermutung? Logik? Gesunder Menschenverstand? All das erscheint überflüssig, wenn es um Meinungsmache gegen die russische Regierung geht. Die Berichte ergehen sich in abwegigen Spekulationen, sie sind teils gefährlich und kriegstreiberisch. Von Tobias Riegel.

    Zum Verständnis des Vorgangs um den russischen Politiker Alexej Nawalny muss immer wieder betont werden: Im Gegensatz zur Darstellung in westlichen Medien ist Nawalny in Russland politisch irrelevant. Die „Deutsche Welle“ ordnet die Chancen des nationalistisch orientierten Nawalny russlandweit „im niedrigen einstelligen Bereich“ ein. Die in den letzten Tagen in deutschen Medien massiv wiederholte Formulierung vom „wichtigsten (...)

  • Russia may be raising the stakes on Turkey after it shot down a Russian air force jet - Business Insider

    Dans cet article sur #turkish_stream (toujours pas de décision), les « incompréhensions » (au minimum) des pays d’Europe centrale sur la politique gazière de la CE (on rappellera que la non réalisation de #south_stream est une conséquence de la participation de Gazprom au projet, le même Gazprom étant associé à #north_stream II apparemment, sans que cela pose de problème)

    In September, a group of European companies signed an agreement with Gazprom to expand its Nord Stream pipeline so that it can deliver increased volumes directly from Russia to Germany, also without pumping them through Ukraine.

    Gazprom and Royal Dutch Shell form the new consortium for the project, which is called Nord Stream II and aims to double the route’s annual capacity to about 100 billion cubic meters of gas.

    The new pipelines are due to start transporting gas by the end of 2019, according to the consortium.

    The plan has met opposition from the U.S. government and some eastern European countries, which say it allows the Kremlin to squeeze Ukraine out from its role as a transit country.

    The pro-Western government in Kiev, in power since street protests overthrew a Moscow-friendly president last year, earns significant revenues from transit fees.

    Ten EU countries have written a letter to the European Commission saying that Nord Stream II runs counter to the bloc’s interests.

    Polish Minister for Maritime Affairs Marek Grobarczyk told Reuters last week the project would harm energy security by deepening dependence on Russian gas.

    There is a broad agreement within EU countries ... that building Nord Stream II stands against the idea of diversification and the idea of the internal market and would lead to an increase of energy supplies from one direction and one supplier,” Grobarczyk said.

    Hungary, a country which backed the aborted South Stream project, has accused the EU of exercising double standards over which pipeline routes it supports and which it opposes.

    They complained about South Stream because it would have bypassed Ukraine. Does Nord Stream II traverse Ukraine?”, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said on Nov. 20. “Interestingly, South Stream was problematic, while Nord Stream is not.

  • Forget Ukraine. It’s Business As Usual Between Europe and Russia

    It was just like the old days before the European Union imposed sanctions on Russia in 2014. At the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok Gazprom clinched three major deals with some of Europe’s biggest energy companies.

    One of the most important was the revival of a lucrative asset swap between the Russian energy giant and Wintershall, the energy division of BASF, a German chemical company. BASF had abandoned that swap arrangement in December 2014 because of the geopolitical consequences of Russia’s invasion of eastern Ukraine and its annexation of Crimea.

    The asset swap and other deals signed in Vladivostok show how German as well as Austrian energy companies are loath to quit Russia. They also show how Gazprom wants to tie Europe’s lucrative gas market more closely to Russia. In 2013, Russia supplied the EU’s 28 countries with 30 percent of their gas needs.

    But more importantly, the deals confirm how Russia is determined to end Ukraine’s role as the major transit route for Russian gas to Europe. Half of the Russian gas imported by Europe crosses Ukraine.

    Under the terms of the deal between BASF and Gazprom, BASF’s subsidiary Wintershall will obtain a stake of 25 percent plus one share in the Urengoy natural gas fields in Siberia. Both firms will develop the fields.

    In return, Wintershall will transfer to Gazprom its jointly owned gas storage and trading business in Germany as well as a stake in its business in Austria. Through the asset swap, Gazprom will also receive a 50 percent stake in Wintershall’s exploration and production of oil and gas in the North Sea. These activities amounted to sales of over $13.4 billion in 2014, according to BASF.

    The second deal agreed to in Vladivostok involves Gazprom and a European consortium building a second Nord Stream pipeline under the Baltic Sea. This will enable Russia to send more of its gas directly to Germany, bypassing Ukraine.

    The consortium consists of BASF, German energy company E.ON, French electricity company Engie, Austrian oil and gas firm OMV and Royal Dutch Shell. Gazprom will own a 51 percent share of a new company called New European Pipeline AG, which will develop the project. The other partners will have a 10 percent stake, except for Engie, which will own 9 percent.

    The fact that the global energy majors participate in the project bespeaks its significance for securing reliable gas supply to European consumers,” stated Alexey Miller, chairman of the Gazprom Management Committee.

    Tell that to Poland and the Baltic states—and Ukraine. They had criticized the first Nord Stream pipeline, which was agreed to under the then German chancellor Gerhard Schröder in 2005. At the time, Warsaw argued that the deal increased Europe’s dependence on Russian energy.

    Since then, however, Europe has been diversifying its energy supplies, spurred by the 2009 Ukraine gas crisis, which disrupted supplies to Europe because of a dispute between Russia and Ukraine over energy prices.

    Also, through its Third Energy Package, the European Commission is introducing more competition in the energy sector by breaking the hold any one company can have over the production, distribution and trading of gas. That is one of the main reasons why in December 2014 Russia pulled out of the South Stream project, which was to transport gas across the Black Sea to Southeastern Europe. Under the terms of the commission package, Russia would have had to open up the gas pipeline to competition.

    The third deal reached in Vladivostok involves OMV’s participation in the Urengoy oil and gas fields. When the deal is concluded, OMV will acquire a 24.8 percent stake in the project in exchange for Gazprom obtaining some of the assets of OMV.

    • Sans trop de surprise, le projet de #North_Stream_2 ne plait pas à l’Ukraine…

      Ukraine PM calls second Russia-Germany pipeline ’anti-European’ - Yahoo News

      Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk on Thursday criticised as “anti-Ukrainian and anti-European” a deal between Russia’s energy giant Gazprom and several Western firms to build a second gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea.

      In June, Gazprom agreed with Anglo-Dutch Shell, Germany’s E.ON and Austria’s OMV to build the new gas pipeline — dubbed Nord Stream-2 — to Germany, bypassing conflict-torn Ukraine and also EU neighbour Poland.

      When the first Nord Stream was built, it brought the European Union no additional energy independence,” Yatsenyuk said after talks with Slovak counterpart Robert Fico in Bratislava.

      The construction of Nord Stream-2 is affecting the security of the continuous gas supply of the EU’s southeastern countries. It is a monopolisation of gas supply routes to the EU,” he told reporters.

      This project is anti-Ukrainian and anti-European.